4 ms·
"Representing herself in court, Cox had argued..." Coders and bloggers are good at what they do and in those spheres it would generally be a good idea to defer
by fleitz 15y ago
"Representing herself in court, Cox had argued..."
Coders and bloggers are good at what they do and in those spheres it would generally be a good idea to defer to them for advice, however, in the sphere of law it's generally a good idea to defer to someone with expertise in that field.
- thetron 15y ago_Especially_ when going up against a law firm in court!
- solutionyogi 15y agoIt was an investment firm and not a law firm.
- hristov 15y agoIt says there she had blogs about the legal industry, so it is likely that she is a lawyer. Of course it is usually not a good idea to represent yourself even if you are a lawyer, but maybe she could not afford representation. Hopefully the ACLU would take up her cause on appeal.
- nknight 15y agoEFF would be more likely, I think. The ACLU's focus is mostly government-related, they don't step into a lot of private lawsuits.
- pyre 15y agoI would think that the ACLU would have an interest in the ruling though.
- c0riander 15y agoAs they say, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
- fleitz 15y agoYup, even if you're a rockstar lawyer, it's always good to have one because your lawyer views the case in a more impartial manner with out the emotional attachments that you may have to the case. It's pretty easy to get blinders on if you're representing yourself.
- nitrogen 15y agoIt's not just that; AIUI if you represent yourself, you can get in a lot more trouble for saying something later decided to be false, or making a statement not supported by evidence. There are explicit bonuses built into the system for those who have a representative.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jamesaguilar 15y ago> Coders and bloggers are good at what they do Not this one. Read the blog post on which the decision is based (http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of-obsidian-finance-group.html http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of...). She sounds positively unhinged. That doesn't mean she should owe this company $2.5 million. But this doesn't read like the work of a journalist or someone with a source. It reads like the ravings of a lunatic. I don't have near enough evidence to make a final judgment one way or another but this certainly smells more like defamation than whistle-blowing.
- smackfu 15y agoThis blog post is so unreadable it's a wonder that they bothered suing her.
- fleitz 15y agoIt sounds like additionally there's a high likelihood that she's judgement proof.
- jamesaguilar 15y agoI imagine sometimes defamation suits are more about the reputation than the money. Also, can't you get legally defamatory content removed from search engines? I honestly do not know.
- MichaelApproved 15y agoI'm betting her showing up prominently in search results for their company is what caused them to take action. They may never recover the judgement amount but they could get the domains as part of the liquidation of her assets.
- josscrowcroft 15y agoYeah, that court case must have been unbearable for all involved...
- 15y ago